From Hurtig to Ny

STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — Julian Assange's second attorney in Sweden, Björn Hurtig, sent a lengthy (and politely heated) letter to Marianne Ny on 12 November 2010, five days before the district court hearing that would begin the five year siege by the United States.

Written in nearly impeccable English, Hurtig outlines his never-ending frustrations with the erratic state jurist, along with her continual violations of Swedish and European law.

'If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade', Hurtig said a few days later after reviewing the 'secret' documents Marianne Ny deliberately withheld from the courts.

Yet despite the case all but collapsing three weeks ago, Marianne Ny and Sweden refuse to admit what they've done.

Borås, 12 November
To: Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny

Re: case no B 12885-10; pros ./. Julian Assange

In my capacity as [public defender] for Julian Assange, I am writing to you in respect of the following matter.

The judicial investigation into Julian Assange was reopened on 1 September. He then had only been served the assault allegation charges, but in your capacity as Director of Prosecution, you made the decision to change the classification in the first instance to sexual assault, and clarified that Julian Assange was also suspected of rape. These sexual assault and rape allegations had not yet been served to Julian Assange.

During the period between me being assigned as Julian Assange's public [defender] to today, you and I have contacted each other a number of times, and on several occasions, I have discussed the circumstances of the case with Deputy Prosecutor General Erika [Lejnefors]. As I understand things, the Prosecution Authority is currently in the process of submitting a report to Stockholm [District] Court whereby you request that Julian Assange be remanded in custody in absentia. The basis for this will be likely that Julian Assange has not yet presented himself at the hearing.

With reference to the above, I would like to present the following.

It was initially requested on a number of occasions that you hear a statement from Julian Assange. The reason for this was that the case was dragging on for an unnecessarily long time, and that it was difficult to prepare for Julian Assange's defence without being aware of the details of the crime for which he was suspected. Your preliminary response to this was that there was not sufficient time to hear Julian Assange at that point, as there were other cases to hear, and there were only a few police officers involved in the case. The hearing for Julian Assange was then deferred. I would particularly like to point out that you reopened the judicial investigation on 1 September, that I was appointed on 8 September, that over a period of weeks, I made [requests] to you to find out the allegations and for Julian Assange to get a fair hearing.

In addition, on several occasions, in respect of 23:18 of the Swedish Penal code, I have requested to obtain a copy of the investigation. I then wrote to you on 14 September with a similar request, asking for copies of all documentation relevant to this case such as declarations, hearings, witness statements, any documentation from SÄPO, etc. As of Friday 12 November 2010, I have not been made aware of any of the allegations aimed at my client. Neither have I yet obtained any documentation primarily from the investigation, apart from Erike Lejnefors who, on 12 November, read a number of sections from the hearing with one of the witnesses, an orally gave me other information from the investigation in respect of the possible forthcoming arrest proceedings.

In conjunction with the above statement to you, I stated that Julian Assange had urgent matters in other countries, and I asked whether there was any ban on him leaving the country. The question therefore was whether there was any enforcement action, such as a ban on travel, aimed at Julian Assange. In the telephone conversation with you, it was apparent that there was no hindrance to Julian Assange leaving the country. At this stage, neither was there any request from your part to hold a hearing with Julian Assange. Julian Assange then left Sweden without knowing if he was expected to attend a hearing, if at all, and whether he had a legal right to leave the country.

Following Julian Assange's departure from Sweden, the Prosecution Authority then requested a hearing with him. He was then in other countries for work matters, and had difficulty in arranging his schedule for exactly what the Prosecution Authority had requested. Meanwhile, through me, he had expressed on several occasions, a willingness to participate in such a hearing. He had himself proposed various dates when he could be in Sweden and participate in a hearing. At the beginning of October in week 40, I notified Erika Lejnefors by telephone that we were willing to attend a hearing on Sunday 10 October, or any day in the following week, week 41.

[Note: Assange planned to return to Stockholm for Afghanistan Week, ending in a procession through the city with Maria Pia Boëthius on 9 October. Proposing the following day (or any day thereafter) was perfectly logical.]

Erika Lejnefors and I agreed that it would be better to hold the hearing in week 41 than on a Sunday. Erika Lejnefors was then going to get back to me after she had spoken to you. Neither the times we had then suggested nor another occasion suggested were acceptable to you; on some occasions, our proposed times were too far in the future (a few weeks' time); another occasion one of your investigators was ill. It should be borne in mind that Julian Assange is a very busy man, with many appointments and meetings around the world. In the time we are now talking about, he had been invited to speak at the UN, for example. The Prosecution Authority is clearly aware of this fact. It must therefore seems strange that a hearing could not take place because an investigator was ill.

In addition to the above attempt from Julian Assange's side to participate in the hearing, he has also, once again through me, shown himself to be willing to participate in a hearing over the telephone. He was at that time prepared to go to an Australian Embassy and - after appropriate identification - to participate in the hearing via telephone.

Therefore, Julian Assange is prepared to participate in a hearing. However, due to his profession and the fact that he is abroad, it is difficult for him to come to Sweden on precisely the dates requested by the Prosecution Authority. In the meantime, he wishes to find a time that suits the Prosecution Authority, but is also willing to participate in the hearing by means other than being physically present in the same room as the investigator/s. Thus, he is prepared to participate by telephone, video link, or any other possible method. He is also prepared to respond to questions and the statement in writing. In this matter, I refer to NJA 2007 p 337, where [the Supreme Court] takes a position on the proportionality of arresting a person in absentia if the person is abroad, has been willing to participate in the hearing in another way than traveling to Sweden, and who has left Sweden without having any enforcement action against him.

From the above, it is clear that Julian Assange is not trying to avoid the hearing. On the contrary, he is willing to participate. I have stated the various alternatives on offer, and believe that it would be wrong of the Prosecution Authority to submit an arrest warrant against the background of Julian Assange showing no sign of contumacy. Instead, it would be most suitable for the Prosecution Authority to provide proposals for various hearing dates with Julian Assange. In addition, the Prosecution Authority should consider the alternatives to a personal appearance which Julian Assange has requested before an arrest warrant is issued.

In addition to the above, there is also the fact that Julian has not yet been informed of the allegations against him, neither in detail nor in a language he understands.

[Note: that's a requirement by EU law that Marianne Ny has systematically defied. There's been no comment or reprimand by her boss Anders Perklev or the Swedish court system.]

Therefore he is obviously [unable] to defend himself effectively and completely against the allegations directed at him.

This is in contravention of Article 6.3 in the European Convention; plus I believe that the Prosecution Authority is in contravention of 23:18 of the Swedish Penal Code by not keeping Julian Assange up to date on the investigation results on an ongoing basis.

Finally, I would like to assert that Julian Assange is known the world over. The Prosecution Authority has already damaged Julian Assange's reputation with its initial breach of privacy.

As far as I understand, the Justice Ombudsman has been informed and the [parliamentary Constitution Committee] has begun an investigation. Following the publication of Julian Assange's name, the Google search engine was quick to show several million hits for the combination of 'Julian Assange' and 'rape' in Swedish and other languages.

[Note: only this past week, Expressen reporter Niklas Svensson, who headed the Twitter defamation assault on Assange on the morning of 21 August 2010, following publication of the article he was later forced to admit was not his, dismissed this concern as 'wimpy' ('fjanteri').]

The claim that the court will arrest Julian Assange as, on reasonable grounds, suspected of rape, will of course create a massive media explosion.

Regardless of the issue of an arrest warrant, such a warrant will be considerably damaging to Julian Assange. I therefore state that, as I have established in this document, the Prosecution Authority should provide a constructive proposal of how and when a hearing should be held with Julian Assange instead of issuing an arrest warrant with its negative consequences which an arrest warrant would naturally entail for Julian Assange.

In the event that the Prosecution Authority keeps to its decision to issue an arrest warrant, I request that nothing be omitted from the arrest memorandum. During my last telephone call to Erika Lejnefors, I namely learned that some SMS messages, the latest hearing with the complainant, and the hearing with Julian Assange were to be omitted. This is therefore a request from my side, that all information be included in the memorandum that is to be submitted to the court and to me. In any case, I wish to have the opportunity to go through the documents prior to the deliberations.

[Note: they could hardly be called deliberations - more like a 'rubber stamp': the court never once consulted the documentation. Erika Lejnefors let Björn Hurtig look at the SMS messages, whereupon he later told the media the case was 'moot' and a charade. But Marianne Ny instructed Erika to not let Björn copy out or take notes on the SMS traffic at all, and this embargo has continued to the present day, in defiance of regulations everywhere and in defiance of common decency. She has even prevented at least one court instance from viewing the SMS messages, and the efforts of Thomas Olsson and Per E Samuelson to have them entered into the court records have also failed - the risk there, they say, is that Marianne Ny will avail herself of her legal right to destroy them all before anyone can gain oversight.]